From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p3UFd7ws032465
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 17:39:07 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcDALEsvE3RVdi2kGdsb2JhbACmDwgUAQEBAQkJDQcUBCGnN4p8giqEHDSIXgEBAwaFegSOeYgXgiM7g0c
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,293,1301868000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="82068755"
Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com ([209.85.216.182])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 30 Apr 2011 17:39:01 +0200
Received: by qyk27 with SMTP id 27so2980354qyk.6
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=kYKX8Vvij1zqA+3llilCrzrDff70j4cUhJmbB1dnOqs=;
        b=lvyNZtXghaQigOKjJrvcg3pudwFBsrFAhRUqEFCTmP+A5GMWIZzI4e/3am5+jegnPe
         DZTNX/3Xt4bhSotsvgPdhFsVhccd1f6wzaSlhcQz771hpO0G58S+HyISU8mdYdVV63Rs
         80hy6TAGNALNACmKZEKpwxQxD+omtW7wsmTEg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=cPfmhL335CW3v5niMKRREA2fcWRqs9NkwzNGhUMdlSae3nxcUJEsZCNDYVy2+aOBrd
         A3h0efJtxIWpjSvYpIXRk08734DdvQ07TorSIkt8UX6B9SKXmFoF21tVm8gjgQ2R8kV1
         4VP+bFBgRanhW8PykF0gmVmOGch8ocj/kLCkE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.101.133 with SMTP id c5mr4773289qco.149.1304177939150;
 Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.185.137 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DBBF59F.1000504@univ-savoie.fr>
References: <4DBBE676.8070101@univ-savoie.fr>
	<4DBBEF0B.2050204@univ-savoie.fr>
	<4DBBF1D8.6020105@gmail.com>
	<4DBBF59F.1000504@univ-savoie.fr>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:38:59 -0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=d42N=Ua-40Xd7vkC9WAMidY9oyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrei Formiga <andrei.formiga@gmail.com>
To: Christophe Raffalli <craff73@gmail.com>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id p3UFd7ws032465
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] portablility of random.mli in the stdlib

Yes, the RNG algorithm changed from 3.11 (linear feedback shift
register) to 3.12 (a lagged Fibonacci with some adaptations). Neither
are suitable for use with cryptography.

-- 
[]s, Andrei Formiga


2011/4/30 Christophe Raffalli <craff73@gmail.com>:
> Le 30/04/11 13:26, Török Edwin a écrit :
>> Why should a random generator give the same results over multiple
>> versions and architectures?
> To be able to replay a game on various architecture saving only the seed
> and the user movement (which is very small).
>> Starting from same seed is useful only for debugging.
> This is really untrue in a lot of applications for instance in cryptography.
> But I do not know if random.ml is good enough for assymetric cryptography
> (where the secret key in the seed and the coding is simply xor with a
> random sequence of bit)
> This require not only passing all randomness test, but also making it
> hard to recover the key from
> a generated sequence of random bits.
>
> Cheers,
> Christophe
>
>
>